Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak

Appellate Court of Illinois

Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak

296 N.E.2d 605, 11 Ill. App. 3d 381, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2436

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 16, 1973

Docket72-239

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 296 N.E.2d 605 (Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alton Evening Telegraph v. Doak, 296 N.E.2d 605, 11 Ill. App. 3d 381, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2436 (Ill. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of Madison County on June 15, 1972, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment which had been rendered on February 17, 1972.

The only question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion on the ground that the plaintiff named in the default judgment lacked the legal capacity to sue.

In In re Annexation of Certain Territory, 37 Ill.App.2d 255 at 263, the court stated:

“The Civil Practice Act requires that a party shall set forth in the body of his pleading the names of all parties for whom relief is thereby sought. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, §21(4) (1961). There must be a party possessed of legal entity as a natural, artificial or quasi-artificial person. See Vukovich v. Custer, 347 Ill.App. 547.”

The present judgment was rendered in the name of the “Alton Evening Telegraph”, which is not the name of a natural or artificial person having the capacity to sue. There are no facts, properly before this court, that identify an entity capable of suing. The legal entity, Alton Telegraph Printing Co., cannot properly be made a party to the suit merely because its name appeal's in an exhibit attached to the complaint. (Fetherston v. National Republic Bancorp, 280 Ill.App. 151.) A lawyer should know his client when he files his suit. (In re Annexation of Certain Territory, 37 Ill.App.2d 255.) A suit brought in a name which is not that of a natural person, a corporation or of a partnership is a mere nullity; and, in such a case, it has been held that the whole action fails. 67 CJS, par. 4; 59 Am.Jur.2d, par. 21; Godair v. Case, 220 Ill.App. 348.

Affirmed.

EBERSPACHER, P. J., and JONES, J, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of Madison County on June 15, 1972, which granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a default judgment which had been rendered on February 17, 1972.

The only question on appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion on the ground that the plaintiff named in the default judgment lacked the legal capacity to sue.

In In re Annexation of Certain Territory, 37 Ill.App.2d 255 at 263, the court stated:

“The Civil Practice Act requires that a party shall set forth in the body of his pleading the names of all parties for whom relief is thereby sought. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110, §21(4) (1961). There must be a party possessed of legal entity as a natural, artificial or quasi-artificial person. See Vukovich v. Custer, 347 Ill.App. 547.”

The present judgment was rendered in the name of the “Alton Evening Telegraph”, which is not the name of a natural or artificial person having the capacity to sue. There are no facts, properly before this court, that identify an entity capable of suing. The legal entity, Alton Telegraph Printing Co., cannot properly be made a party to the suit merely because its name appeal's in an exhibit attached to the complaint. (Fetherston v. National Republic Bancorp, 280 Ill.App. 151.) A lawyer should know his client when he files his suit. (In re Annexation of Certain Territory, 37 Ill.App.2d 255.) A suit brought in a name which is not that of a natural person, a corporation or of a partnership is a mere nullity; and, in such a case, it has been held that the whole action fails. 67 CJS, par. 4; 59 Am.Jur.2d, par. 21; Godair v. Case, 220 Ill.App. 348.

Affirmed.

EBERSPACHER, P. J., and JONES, J, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

296 N.E.2d 605, 11 Ill. App. 3d 381, 1973 Ill. App. LEXIS 2436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alton-evening-telegraph-v-doak-illappct-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack